As of September 5, 2022, Freedom of Information Commission meetings and contested case hearings will resume being conducted in person. All parties and witnesses must appear in person for their contested case hearings and Commission meetings. Please access this link or contact the Commission for further information.

Final Decision FIC2011-215
In the Matter of a Complaint by
FINAL DECISION
Jose Arcia
     Complainant
     against
Docket #FIC 2011-215
Chief, Police Department, City of Bristol;
and Police Department, City of Bristol,
     Respondents
February 8, 2012

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on November 8, 2011, at which time the complainant and respondents appeared and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. The complainant, who is incarcerated, appeared via teleconference, pursuant to the January 2004 memorandum of understanding between the Commission and the Department of Correction.  See Docket No. CV 03-0826293, Anthony Sinchak v. FOIC et al, Superior Court, J.D. of Hartford at Hartford, Corrected Order dated January 27, 2004 (Sheldon, J.). 
After consideration of the entire record, the following facts are found and conclusions of law are reached:
1. The respondents are public agencies within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S.
2. It is found that on March 30, 2011, the complainant made a seven-part request for a copy of records pertaining to two criminal matters.
3. By letter of complaint filed August 26, 2011, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to provide him with copies of the records he requested. 
4. Section 1-200(5), G.S., defines “public records” as follows:
     Public records or files means any recorded data or information relating to the conduct of the public's business prepared, owned, used, received or retained by a public agency, …whether such data or information be handwritten, typed, tape-recorded, printed, photostated, photographed or recorded by any other method.
5. Section 1-210(a), G.S., provides, in relevant part:
     Except as otherwise provided by any federal law or state statute, all records maintained or kept on file by any public agency, whether or not such records are required by any law or by any rule or regulation, shall be public records and every person shall have the right to … receive a copy of such records in accordance with the provisions of section 1-212.
6. Section 1-212(a), G.S., provides in relevant part:  “Any person applying in writing shall receive, promptly upon request, a plain, facsimile, electronic or certified copy of any public record.”
7. It is concluded that the records requested by the complainant are public records within the meaning of §§1-200(5), 1-210(a), and 1-212(a), G.S.
8. It is found that on May 11, 2011, the respondents provided several copies of records to the complainant in compliance with his request.
9. As of the date of the hearing in this matter, the only records that the complainant was seeking were copies of the arrest warrants for both cases, a copy of the NCIC-COLLECT printout for the August 16, 2004 arrest, and a copy of any record that showed the name of the officer from the Hartford Police Department who took custody of the complainant from the respondents on April 30, 2004 and of the officer from the Newington Police Department who took custody of the complainant from the respondents on August 16, 2004.
10.  It is found that the respondents do not maintain copies of the arrest warrants, because they were warrants held by the Hartford Police Department and the Newington Police Department.  It is found that the respondents merely assisted Hartford and Newington in serving the arrest warrant on the complainant, who resided in the City of Bristol.
11.  It is found that the copies of records provided to the complainant indicate that he was held for transfer to Hartford and Newington, but do not indicate the name of the officer from either of those police departments who took custody of the complainant.
12.  It is found that the respondents searched the complainant’s files for the NCIC-COLLECT printout.  It is found that the respondents do not maintain a copy of such record for the August 16, 2004 offense, but provided a copy of the printout attached to the incident report for the April 30, 2004 offense.
13.  It is concluded that the respondents did not violate the FOI Act as alleged by the complainant.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. The complaint is dismissed.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of February 8,  2012.
__________________________
Cynthia A. Cannata
Acting Clerk of the Commission
PURSUANT TO SECTION 4-180(c), G.S., THE FOLLOWING ARE THE NAMES OF EACH PARTY AND THE MOST RECENT MAILING ADDRESS, PROVIDED TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION, OF THE PARTIES OR THEIR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.
THE PARTIES TO THIS CONTESTED CASE ARE:
Jose Arcia #320962
Carl Robinson Correctional Institution
P.O. Box 1400
Enfield, CT  06083
Chief, Police Department, City of Bristol; and
Police Department, City of Bristol
c/o Richard E. Lacey, Esq.
Bristol Corporation Counsel
111 North Main Street
Bristol, CT  06010
____________________________
Cynthia A. Cannata
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC/2011-215/FD/cac/2/8/2012